Autocar Full M3 Test

[KK265]

[Leadfoot]

I knew I was correct that AUTOCAR got the RS4 to the 150mph in the 26s or should I say 26.8s exactly, that was a whole 0.3s slower to reach the 150mph mark.

Please BMW guys, explain to me here and now that Quattro loses more power from it's drive-train than the BMW rwd set-up because from what I'm reading here if anything it's the Quattro set-up which is losing less because the weight of the two cars is one thing that is always correct and in the UK all RS4s are quite highly specced and the one AUTOCAR tested had SAT-NAV and rear electric windows and was a full 150Kgs heavier.

You can't even say that this M3 didn't perform because it posted a mind boggling 10.2s to 100mph, that's on par with an M5 for heaven-sake. And I know I keep preaching on about this (this is addressed to the S.African guys) but just look at the difference between the RS4 and the M3 around the wet handling course. Oh and by the way just to rub it in, a Focus ST220 or Golf GTi are both quicker on this track, once again proving that in such conditions even fwd is better than rwd.

But then again you already knew that.

P.S.
They got the weights of the two wrong in the TOP FIVE bit at the bottom, it's the RS4 which is claimed 1655Kgs and the M3 that's 1538Kgs.

[artur777]

Leadfoot,

the track times are quite strange.
How could RS4 in wet be faster than in dry conditions?

[Leadfoot]

artur777,

It not the same track, that's how.

[artur777]

Leadfoot,

my ages!
Sorry - it was my inattentiveness.

[Leadfoot]

artur777,

Don't beat yourself up about it, must look at and think the same, the track is actually quite a bit shorter and is totally covered in water, not unlike some roads you will get in the UK at the height of the Autumn only without the fallen leaves which can be even worse.

I am giving the M3 is really hard time about it's wet handling but the truth is it actually coped with the corners well, it's problem was traction out of the corners, it's that 50/50 weight balance coming in to the argument again or should I say 51/49 weight balance, naughty BMW for quoting all their cars are 50/50, in fact both the M5/6 don't meet this figure either but back to the traction problems maybe Ferrari and the others are right after all with their 47/53.

It still a great car and a brilliant alternative to either the RS4 or the Cayman S.

[artur777]

Leadfoot,

do you mean that for a car to exit a corner faster it's better to have assymetric weight balance?
the second question: is it better to have such balance with more weight on the front axle or rear axle if we talk about RWD and AWD cars?

[Leadfoot]

On rwd to have a bit more weight on the driving wheels has to be a benefit especially on slippery conditions. As for awd, I believe it's less weight bias than either fwd or rwd but it's setting will be more determined by where the engine is on the car and then the awd setting will be adjusted accordingly.

[artur777]

Leadfoot,

in Audi RS4 weight balance is 60/40 and power is distributed as 40/60.
So they have more power at the end - not at the front.
So it seems that if the power distribution were 60/40 as the weight, RS4 could exit corners even faster.
But then it should be even more understeered than it is.
Do I get right?

[Fab]

Very nice test. Once again both cars are very close but definitely the RS4 has specific characteristics that the M3 can't match i.e. engine sound, built quality, allweather car etc.

This is the most objective point of view I red... Then you simply choose the one you prefer.

For me the RS4/M3 battle has come to an end : Audi managed to bring its RS to the level of the "king" M3 (as many magazines are used to call it) which is a great achievement with even some better charateritics.

No doubt in my mind that the next RS generations (4, 5, 6) will just leave BM in the dust in all criterias.

[Leadfoot]

Leadfoot,

in Audi RS4 weight balance is 60/40 and power is distributed as 40/60.
So they have more power at the end - not at the front.
So it seems that if the power distribution were 60/40 as the weight, RS4 could exit corners even faster.
But then it should be even more understeered than it is.
Do I get right?

Artur777,

Sorry mate, you are missing the point, forget the 40/60 split that the RS4 has, this is just it's normal set-up while driving without load like on the motorway etc, as soon a load happens the power is shifted to where the grip is required so depending on the situation the power can be anything between 85/15 ~15/85. This is the beauty of awd over rwd.

Like I said before weight balance is less important with awd than rwd cars but clearly the more even the axles are the better it will perform.

[audi_ch]

am i right, the m3 is on 18" wheels, the rs4 was on 19". If yes that definitly makes a difference up to 150 mph

[KK265]

am i right, the m3 is on 18" wheels, the rs4 was on 19". If yes that definitly makes a difference up to 150 mph

Look a little better on subject tyres please.....(245/35/19 front and 265/35/19 rear)...

[KK265]

P.S. Suffered epic understeer on a roundabout yesterday with the RS4.

[Leadfoot]

They were both fitted with 19" alloys in the test.

[Leadfoot]

Wet road performance is all in the tires. As long as you are not pressing the gas pedal in the corner, it doesn't matter what kind of "drive" you have, the tires matter. AWD means that you can be hamfisted with the throttle.

P.S. Suffered epic understeer on a roundabout yesterday with the RS4.

This is only a bit of advice, please stop saying things that are trying to make it look like the RS4 is a poor handling car because all you are doing is proving to the rest of us that you have to be one of the worst drivers ever.

[RussianM3_dude]

Talk to the hand...

[artur777]

Leadfoot, thanks for the answer.
Now I understand why RS4 corners out quicker than M3.

If I got right basing on the figures of RS4 and M3 - RS6 will simply humiliate M5 with having even 73hp more!